The silence is quite understandable as there are some opposing view on DLP even though it has been stressed many times that its optional and depends on the parents’ request and consent.

This post will not cover the background of DLP. Instead it focuses on the content of this new circular and hopes to highlight key points which may help parents and school administrators.

The document contains 2 parts: the first 3 pages (the page with signature is strangely missing) are the cover letter and the balance is the garis panduan (guideline).

1. Page 2 Item 7 states that previous circulars are now void and is replaced by the current one. So, need no make any reference to the earlier ones.

2. Criteria for DLP remains at four (criteria 2 should be labelled as (b)), but there are some interesting changes.

Let’s look into each of them.

Criteria a) – School should (hendaklah) have sufficient resources. Resources here means teachers, classrooms and materials. Obviously materials will come form MOE (text books) while classroom is not an issue. Only teacher qualification may be a constraint, but as long as the teacher is currently qualified to teach science/maths, it should not be even a problem, because after all, its just primary/secondary school level subject right? Anyhow the teacher criteria is described in section 6.2. Basically if the teacher has credit in SPM English, has taught science/maths for at least 3 years or has a minimum diploma qualification in science/maths related course, then he/she is qualified.

Criteria b) (or 2) – School HM or principal should (hendaklah) have discussion with teachers and state education department to prepare short term and long term plans to ensure effectiveness and continuity of DLP in terms of teachers, students, classrooms and other resources. So, decision should be made after consultation with the PPD/JPN.

Criteria c) – Application from a minimum of 15 parents should (hendaklah) be obtained to proceed with DLP. If the number of application is insufficient, parents must (perlu) be informed. Previously, no minimum number was set at application level, but for class to begin need to have minimum 15 students.

Criteria d) – the school’s BM results at UPSR/SPM level must be equal or more than the level set by MOE (the level is not defined in the circular, which is a very smart move). Previously it was tied to the national average which meant that many schools are not able to proceed with DLP.

3. Implementation of DLP can only begin at Year 1 or Form 1, unlike previously which can also begin at Year 4 and Form 4. Also, once started, the class must continue until Year 6/Form 5 even if the number of students dropped below 15.

4. The confusion arises when I read on how to apply for DLP. As mentioned below in para 6.7.1.a, the application need to be started in the year preceding DLP implementation. So if school wants to start DLP in 2019, they should have applied by 31 March 2018! Problem is, this circular is published in October 2018 and the school themselves may not have any idea who are the parents of the new Year 1 students and whether they are interested to take up DLP option. So, this procedure and guideline assumes the initial interest comes from school, not parents. And this application process ends by June of current year whereby MOE gives approval to run DLP classes.

5. Clause 7 refer to responsibility of parents and school in application of DLP. School must give DLP application form to parents of Year 1/Form 1 students by 1st week of school. There is also an appeal process if the students is not selected for DLP.

All the relevant forms are provided in the circular so schools need not waste time creating forms and so on. Example below is the application form for parents to fill up.

In conclusion, the new circular has removed some of the hurdles in implementing DLP. However since it was released very late, the deadline for schools to send application to run DLP is long over. Perhaps there were briefings held early of the year, but quite doubtful as no news on such briefing. If the school didn’t make any application this year so far, MOE must give some leeway to allow schools to apply immediately and submit by some date before end of the year. Also there must a process for parents to initiate the application as some schools may be hesitant to implement DLP due to other agendas.

This is quite a statement. Granted the sample of survey is very small, less than 3% of the schools. Not sure how valid that is. But in that small sample, 60% are below par, and 40% is either good or excellent. Reason being (mainly I suppose) is teachers acceptance and understanding of HOTS (or KBAT in BM). Higher Order Thinking Skills (Kemahiran Berfikir Aras Tinggi). This points to – rushed implementation, lack of planning, or mismatch between expectation and reality. We have half a million teachers to train, not only technically but mindset and culture. Perhaps the initiative should have been started on smaller scale, but then you will end up with syllabus which is not standardised.

Oh, I’m back in action btw. Just the second post for the year, what an underachievement.

Was watching TV2 Tamil news yesterday. Deputy Education Minister P Kamalanathan was talking about the recent matriculation intake. Out of the 1500 seats allocated to Indian students, 1394 was taken up. Initially more than 6000 students applied, and in the first round nearly 1200 were selected. some of the rejected their places and thus the balance 4000+ who appealed (nearly all who applied appealed) were review and few more were selected.

My question is, out of the 4000 over applicants, we can’t even get 1,500 candidates? Even after review those who appealed? Very strange.

Have a look at the minimum qualification required to apply matriculation:

I have two relations with string of As who didn’t get the place even after appealing. So what gives? Logically, if you got 6000 over applicants, who all meet the minimum requirements, you can easily fill up the 1500 seats. And yet got 106 places left vacant. That’s 7% gone, and probably the chance for 106 students to get education. did the 106 reject after appeal approved? Didn’t turn up last minute due to campus allocation?

So out of the 356 appellants offered place, 212 (59.5%) accepted and 144 rejected (40.5%). Quite high rejection rate. Maybe due to late appeal results which means they have taken other options, or wrong appellants given offers.

When you read the title above, what comes to your mind? Let me guess: People from all over the world take part in some sort of debating competition?

How about: “world’s largest high school International Debating Championship”?

Now, it would seem like this debate competition is for high school students from all over the world.

Reading this info:

“For the first time ever Limkokwing University of Creative Technology will play host to the world’s biggest high school debating championship with the inaugural of International Debating Championship that will take place from the 20th to the 23rd of February 2014, at the University’s Cyberjaya campus.

With over 200 teams participating from all over Malaysia, this challenge is an open competition where schools from the various parts of Malaysia are invited to participate and compete in front of the international panel of adjudication.” [I set some of the terms to be bold]

Wait a minuted! 200 teams from…. all over Malaysia….is a biggest international event? Oh…the “international” is for the judges, not participants.

Is this what we call “pakar kelentong”? Marketing gimmick at its best. Ethics and integrity…”what is that”?

If you want to know about largest/biggest debate competitions among nations, refer:

http://www.schoolsdebate.com/ or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Schools_Debating_Championships where more than 40 nations take part.

or how about this one: http://cambridgeschools.cus.org/ which has more than 600 teams participating?

I wonder if China or India would have similar competitions which will be sized accordingly or even bigger with the local participants they can gather. Having hundreds of thousands of schools means sure got lot of participants.

Maybe should rename competition to “World’s Largest N0t-so-International Debating Championship hosted by LimKokWing University for Malaysians Secondary Schools With An International Panel of Judges under the Patronage of YBhg Tan Sri Dato Dr Lim Kok Wing”. Then it would be accurate.

Yeah its a good effort, noble intention and I truly support such events, but but but, please reduce the tahap kelentong la, even though its like second nature to you. Or do some proper research to back your “biggest”, “largest” etc claims.

Note: I know that education is a business, and competition is tough. Plenty of hanky panky happens in these IPTS, but some are worse than others.

A call which is very long overdue (or maybe repeated often silently), but in many ways – worthless. It will be a miracle if land is allocated for such schools in new housing areas or made part of condition for developers to develop housing projects, due to economic, social and political reasons. It goes against the national education policy it seems to build more vernacular schools. Flimsy reasons are given, when asked about secondary vernacular school, such as “increase enrollment in primary school first” [coming up in next blog post].

I think any housing development project must allocate land for primary and secondary schools [if can allocate land for private or international schools, don’t tell me can’t do it for national type schools!!!], places of worship (at least 5 different religion/denominations), community hall, nursery/kindergarten, daycare center, police beat, sports field, one or two row of shoplots, among others.

As I said, all these noise is from the proverbial empty vessels. We all know the power lies in whose hands.

MCA has called on the government to reserve land for all types of schools, including vernacular schools, at new housing estates.

MCA president Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai said the education department must be proactive in its planning for schools.

“The education officers must identify the locations and reserve the land for Chinese schools before the people ask for it,” he said after visiting the newly opened SJKC Kheng Chee, which has been relocated from Pahang in the morning.

Liow added that currently there are only reserved lands for the national schools.

He said MCA would continue to monitor the implementation of the Education Blueprint to ensure the continuous development of Chinese education since the government had recognised it as part of the mainstream education system.